User talk:Teledildonix314

Hello Teledildonix314, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Who am i ?

My personal information is on my User Page ~ i'm Kevin Hutchins and my screen-name is Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions}

excellent criteria for debunking superstition and religion

The following is copied and pasted directly from User:Mccready because it is so awesome to find such a concise summary of logic which works for most any dispute in which evidence-based activity (e.g., scientific research) is in conflict with fantasy-based notions (e.g., religions and superstitions):

Points commonly made by pseudoscientists

1. Pseudoscience is an offensive word and a POV label.

• Wrong. It's a perfectly useful word and should be used when appropriate. If other people find it offensive, we can't help that. As encyclopedists we don't pander to people's feelings. We describe things accurately.

2. You need to cite a source before using the word.

• No. We are perfectly at liberty to draw inferences in writing an encyclopedic article. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If it fits the definition as above then use it.

3. My pseudoscience has lots of scientists working on it. But I know it's a possibility that it's not fully supported by science.

• Yes there is enormous effort being put into research in all sorts of areas. Usually the underlying theories (eg meridians in acupuncture or vertebral subluxation in chiropractic) are not supported by the scientific method and studies are usually disputed. The fact that research exists, even in peer reviewed journals may not be enough to avoid fitting the definition of pseudoscience.

4. My pseudoscience is supported by governments or universities.

• Governments usually make decisions for political, not scientific, reasons. The lobbying power of some psuedosciences is enormous and of course we have the problem of cultural memes. Universities these days are unfortunately more market driven than otherwise. Thus government or university support does not change the fact that your field may be a pseudoscience. Don't forget how many people thought the world was flat.

5. My career is built on this pseudoscience. I've been trained. I'm an expert. I've seen with my own eyes.

• See regressive fallacy. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. We need replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science.

6. You can't say that one day my pseudoscience might be proven and we are working on it. Scientists say further research needs to be done.

• True. But in the meantime the appellation might fit and we are writing an encyclopedia here not speculating and not providing material for scientists to pad their research applications with. Perhaps enough research has been done to conclude that your pseudoscience is not a good bet.

7. The onus is on you to disprove my pseudoscience.

• No. You can't prove a negative.

8. You're not being balanced about my pseudoscience.

• Balance is a weasel word which people seem to prefer instead of truth or accuracy. The notion that balance has to be given to the idea, to pick an example I hope will offend nobody, that the moon is made of blue cheese is unacceptable. Maybe it is legitimate to put more brickbats than bouquets in an article about your pseudoscience.

9. Whether the moon is made of blue cheese is subject to scientific research. There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports this. Please replace the bolded words with your pseudoscience. You may then be able to see that perhaps this form of words is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It may be a POVish attempt to place your pseudoscience within the realms of science, as noted variously above.

copied and pasted on 090103_0559PST Teledildonix314 ^talk 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 ^talk 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Non Sequitur - the Invention of Ideology

Greater Victoria, British Columbia

Thanks for finding what you called an exhortation. In fact, it was political. I find comments like that all over wikipedia regarding Canadian sites that have land claim disputes. This particular one was added 2008-02-13, but somehow I missed it. I guess I will have to check my watchlist more often. I already do it at least once a day, but if two changes are made on the same day I might not see the first one. Then again, it was right before Valentine's Day... my mind might have been elsewhere!!! LOL -CubBC (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

Apologists for despicable [professional] charlatans (i.e., christians and other religious people who can't distinguish supernaturalism from realism) managed to prolong an edit-war until it led to a lockdown on the article. Sadly, the bio reads like a puff-piece written by a minion of Warren's public-relations office, and his contributions to the deaths and suffering and denial of basic human rights to millions of people (in American and Africa, or anywhere else where his tentacles [money and influence and brainwashing] reach) will be judged by history as monstrous. It might appear polemic to point out the criticisms of the man while the news about his activities is still "controversial" (i.e., unflattering to christians such as Warren and his anti-humanist ilk); however, in the future, people will come to realize that only an apologist would write such a toadying article about such an odious [inflammatory] person, while forbidding any reports which cast Warren and the other anti-secularists in a poor light! Teledildonix314 ^talk 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed "reactionary" from the article. You have not provided any citation for any work that might support this characterization of Warren; it is something entirely of your doing, unsupported by anything resembling a reliable source. Further, as I look over the article for reactionary, I think it is clearly incorrect to say that Warren "seeks a return to a previous state." This would require some kind of false history in which Christians were running some kind of dictatorship here in the U.S., which has clearly not ever been the case. Warren and others like him often put forward this false notion that he is putting things back to where they were, when in fact they propose something completely new that has never existed before (and never could have, for that matter.) This is a ploy for legitimacy on Warren's part, falsely asserting a return to something that once was; I take it you would not be one to help prop him up and inflate his status (already overinflated as it is) by buying such a ploy.

If you are expecting other editors who support Warren to withdraw edits (such as the "America's Pastor" nonsense) for which they cannot put forward reliable sources, you will also have to abide by the requirement for reliable sources, particularly in this most glaring instance. You have today added some other material that also doesn't seem to refer to any reliable source but that draws associations and conclusions of your own. I will also eventually be removing those. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You (Mike Doughney) are clearly mistaken here, with demonstrable evidence and a most unambiguous example to refute your stance. The passage of Proposition 8 to strip people of civil rights when they had already been upheld by the state's high court is one of the most explicit and overt examples of 'Reactionary' politics we could possibly see in our country. The Reactionary voters are trying to force the community to revert to a previous state of affairs in which the progressive secular values are destroyed and oppressed. How is that not the most obvious sort of Reactionary behavior you've ever heard?!? You are wrong, Mike Doughney, and you don't have to argue with my choice of words, you can look up the definitions in any dictionary and learn for yourself. Once again, here is the actual article: Reactionary!

Teledildonix314 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying. You will need a citation from a reliable source that indicates that Warren is a reactionary. Without that, the term is inappropriate, and it doesn't matter what you or I think of the guy, you will need a citation to support using that term.

I will also caution you that since what you are editing is a biography of a living person, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. I suggest you go back and read that policy before making any further edits. That policy prohibits you from adding characterizations of living persons that are not verifiable. In particular, your accusation that what Warren is doing is slanderous had to come out of the article. I think it also applies to your characterization of Warren as a reactionary sans verifiable sources to support that. Repeated violations of the BLP policy could get you blocked or banned. I will start that process without hesitation if you continue to add such BLP policy violating material to the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Rick Warren. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Rick Warren. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Rick Warren, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to destroy my contributions. Rather than argue with you, rather than dispute some choice of words, i have merely added direct quotations and verifiable citations. But you keep erasing my citations and overt attributions. This makes it impossible to contribute constructively to the improvement of any article. If you don't like my contributions, why don't you just offer some of your own to counter mine? Why do you have to keep erasing all of the links and footnotes which i've added? What is the point of having an encyclopedia which is supposed to be open to any editor, if you just destroy each of my edits and my citations? Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to edit on Wikipedia. I am not here to destroy your work or reputation. All I am telling you is to follow the rules carefully. I sincerely and strongly apologize if your edits are good faith. But you need to think carefully about what you are working on before you edit. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Rick Warren. PXK ^T /_C 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Please see this. PXK ^T /_C 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, back away from User:Straight Edge PXK. If they are causing some sort of problem let me or any other administrator know and we will deal with it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed at WP:ANI

Please see [this.] _{(URL edited 2009-01-04 by Teledildonix314)} Also, when given a final warning, making a personal attack against a user is a bad idea. PXK ^T /_C 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did those warnings because it is poilcy to report any incivilty. The personal attack you did was my editor review. And for the record, I'm not an adult, I'm 15. PXK ^T /_C 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PXK, please back away from this editor. You have filed a report. Now let it run its course. Further fighting will not help anybody. Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article And now i've felt the need to comment further there. Sigh. Teledildonix314 ^talk 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: thanks

You're welcome. By the way, I have an email set. Just look at the bar on my talk page. PXK ^T /_C 19:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping

Hi. You are doing your cause no good by editing under a username that people are likely to find offensive, and by not adhering to basic good Wikisense in your edits. Listen to what people are telling you, provide references, etc. then you can object about ideological bias if you're reverted. In the meantime, I suggest you change your username -- what's wrong with "Kevin Hutchins"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody offended by a word as innocuous as Teledildonix314 is obviously too prudish and hypersensitive to be able to deal with the realities of reading an encyclopedia. Fear of human form and function is no basis for education nor editorializing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this can end a bad beginning, and begin a good New Year. I need to improve civility, and i need to stick strictly to trivial edits which will trouble no squawking hordes! I must raise my ethical standards, never lower them. I have much learning to do. Teledildonix314 ^talk 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good research. You might also want to look into the effort to delete Saddlebacking. It doesn't look like it can succeed, but every bit of support helps. Spotfixer (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's trying to trick me into violating WP:3RR, so I'm going to have to let the whitewashed version stand. Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably a simple tactic, and i'm getting dragged into the 3RR situation as well, so if they delete the latest citation, i'll probably have to let it stand for a while until other editors can be brought in to fix it. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I decided to report him after his 5th revert. His behavior is unacceptable, and he had many chances to stop and undo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you have not crossed the 3RR line you have still been engaged in edit warring. I strongly suggest that you make greater attempts to find a consensus on the article talk pages instead of using multiple reverts. If that fails, then there are better methods of dispute resolution available. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COI request

I've noticed on spme of your recent edits, you've accused another editor of a pretty major conflict of interest, being a part of one of the churches discussed. Do you have any DIFFs that show where he admitted that? It would certainly help your case. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The example i find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404

It doesn't imply that they are a senior administrator or owner, but i surmise they might be in some kind of Public Relations department (given the type of edits they did). Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

It seems that you supported my proposed text here [1]. Would you mind saying that here?Talk:Rick_Warren#Proposed_Content_.22B.22 Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh nvm, it was archived. I'll make a RFC again soon. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm skeptical of RFC's actually doing anything, I'm still willing to chime in. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you commented in the new RFC, please dont forget to vote if u have a decision. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote, but i don't know if it's helping in this situation. The admins seem to be going by raw "head count" rather than application of common-sense (o goodness, maybe i shouldn't use that term) in order to decide which edits stay or go. And unfortunately, as is often the case, a mob of determined voices are able to clamor and drown out anything sensible you've presented so far. It's so frustrating because i just get tired of the uphill slog. Teledildonix314 ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Being Offensive

I see that you are trying to be open minded and civil and made an attempt to apologize to Collect; this is admirable and I applaud you for it. However, in doing so you used offensive language in your "apology." To wit: "Religion is the opposite of education; faith is the opposite of intelligence; fantasy is the opposite of reality; superstition is the opposite of demonstration..." Was this really your intent?

To use "religion", "faith", etc. in opposition to words you deem positive (I think they're words positive as well) is not only again offensive, it is quite naive. If you would care to take a journey of study you might find that of people who believe in God, many are highly educated. As you must know from history, many of the major scientists were men and women of deep faith in God. Today, there are an immense number of highly educated people, including scientists, who believe in God, not just as matter of faith but also from careful study of science, historical evidence, etc. "Faith" is an interesting word. We have faith (or trust) in many things we can't see or touch. It is evident to me, as a Christian, that many people who disregard the evidence of our Creator put "faith" in things that have far less evidence to support their belief. I assert that it takes far more faith to be an atheist that it does to be a Christian.

If you would like to pursue this journey/investigation I would be happy to suggest a couple introductory books. CarverM (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert

what is the proper Wiki way the link the two articles and mark them as needing attention? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, i am new with these tools, so i'm not sure, but here's what i found.

• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
• Dzoosotoyn_Elisen_Desert
• Gurbantunggut_Desert

The problem is, i am not educated about this geography topic, so i don't know for sure that it's correct to Request a Proposal For Merger. Do you have any reference materials on Xinjiang topics which could verify whether they are synonymous? Can you tell me where to look for the verification that they are truly supposed to be Merged? I'm sorry, i don't know any technical information about central Asian desert geography, i only edited the article for minor cleanup, and i don't even know how the administrators and editors get those Mergers finalized. Please write to me here again if you get totally stumped, and i will read some more Help Pages to see where the explanations might be hidden, assuming you know about some reference materials which verify our need to Merge. Thanks very much for asking, please let me know how i should help you proceed. You can just edit right here on my Talk Page to reply, i often watch my messages every few days. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)